[Bill,
November 5, 2008]
'The Dude abides'
IJS.
[Bill,
November 5, 2008]
Insomniac brain dump after the election
Here's a gentleman who has similar thoughts to mine about the treatment of President Bush:
I was thinking of writing a blog post. There are some things I no longer bother to say, and I was thinking of reviewing them. Sort of my 10 big moments in the past decade when I realized the United States had really changed. In most cases, it's not the event, but the reaction that surprised me.
1. The Florida election in 2000. The unhinged lunacy was shocking to me — I had assumed, before that month-long debacle, that mature adults would count the votes once, count them again if it were close, and finally, simply agree that we'd done the best we could, and let's move on. The open anger and screaming at each other, I felt, was unworthy of a Great Republic, and a terrible sign.
2. The Enron/WorldCom scandals and Sarbanes-Oxley. SOX was an over-reaction that has damaged our economy and slowed recovery since the day it was passed. And this was to stop the next greedy psychopath. Uh-huh. Except greedy psychopaths aren't likely to follow any set of rules, are they?
3. The attack on Dubya after 9-11, the press's trumpeting of futility of any kind of war in Afghanistan, and the furious nature of the opposition to the War in Iraq. I had assumed that in a mature Republic, people would accept that we were facing a new kind of enemy, and needed to fight under difficult and new rules.
4. The inability to quickly rebuild the World Trade Center, and worse, trying to pretend that we were building a taller building. We're building a shorter building with an empty tower on top; it fools no one. And the fawning memorials. The greatest memorial to 9-11 would be a rapid rebuilding of the WTC, only taller, not creating a graveyard.
5. Same sex marriage. This one was not quite unbelievable to me, because I thought the day would come when people would no longer tolerate any kind of distinctions or limits ... it's prophesized in the Bible. I just didn't see it happening so quickly. As I've mentioned before, the problem with SSM isn't so much SSM as the attitudes toward truth, first principles, and language. That someone could take something as wonderful as marriage and make a divisive, hatred-tinged political issue out of its definition struck me as a sign that Americans had surrendered all our first principles out of fear of seeming mean to others.
6. The Republican Party's runaway spending from 2000-2006 utterly blew away 20 years of progress in anti-statism. Reagan made tax-and-spend a dirty word, and Clinton ratified it. It was the philosophy of the land. And then the GOP, and yes, President Bush, knocked over the paradigm. That's my harshest criticism of him.
7. Barack Obama. That this man, with his paper-thin resume and non-existent record, who has promised basically to turn this country into a European-style social democracy, could gain any traction, surprised the heck of me in the early going. (I realized some time in the spring, you can find the post, that he was going to win.) I should note, however, that we have become a country of serial bubble-blowing, and Obama is just another bubble, a political one, instead of a business one.
8. Global warming hysteria. This surprised me because mature people should understand that trendlines in things like climate science are not so quickly attributed to causes. Yet, there seemed to be a compelling need to bludgeon anyone who thought differently. Heck, I was open to the idea that man was causing global warming, but was keeping an open mind. The religious zeal of the global warming alarmists, however, really set me to thinking that these people really had an anti-industrial and pro-statist agenda. I was like, have a little humility — we don't understand what causes the weather yet. And we certainly don't know how we can fix it. For all we know, we're ready to have another ice age and fossil fuels are holding it off. My point is: You don't know. Be humble. There are better ways to make your argument to reduce fossil-fuel usage and protect the environment.
9. The destruction and apostasy of the Episcopal Church. I had seen this one coming for a long time, since 1992, but I never thought it would happen so soon — and that people would either (1) turn their heads aside and pretend the church isn't apostasizing, and (2) actually elect apostate and heretical bishops and then persecute orthodox ones. In some ways, I see the Episcopal Church as the canary in the coal mine when it comes to America. The left is humble when seeking power, and tyrannical once it gets it — it talks tolerance to get its heresies included, and then bans orthodoxy once in power.
10. Serial bubble blowing. By this, I mean our susceptibility to the madness of crowds -- as people seem focused on how to make money speculating in price-changes in markets, but not so much in working hard to create value or building businesses. Dot-com, lotteries, tech boom, m&a boom, real estate ... now apparently we're going to create a government bubble.
That many of my friends, people I love, not only didn't see any or many of these things as a problem, but positively cheered many of these things on. Makes me feel ... well, lonely sometimes.
Meanwhile, at this passing of an era, there are some areas that I've given short shrift to:
1. Healthcare. Problem: I don't know why it costs so much, so I can't propose any solutions. But I do ask the same question as many people -- what can we do to reduce the risk of a medical illnes knocking someone out of the middle class? And what was the traditional solution that's no longer relevant?
2. Globalization. Darned if I know if this is a good thing or a bad thing. My suspicion is still it's a bad thing, but I'm not sure what the solution is, short of allowing people and capital to cross borders freely.
3. Mass layoffs. This has been going on for 20 years, but it's still not cool and has damaged our country in all sorts of ways. Basically, there's a fundamental lack of trust -- the sense that we're all free agents. Perhaps it's that sense that drives people to government solutions now.
4. Energy independence. Yup, we need it.
There are other deeper cultural problems I don't talk too much about anymore. Toqueville said the U.S. runs the risk of atomization. I think we've really progressed far in that atomization in the past 30 years. It seems like a different country, frankly.
I guess what I'm getting at is this -- the country has become atomized, that is, living either individually or in very small units, and that smallness leave us extremely vulnerable to the whims of fate and the market. As conservatives, we reject statism because we think that families, neighborhoods, towns, associations, community groups, parishes and faith should taking away that sense of vulnerability. But these things have all declined so much that they're not leaving people feeling secure any more -- and so they turn to government. That's it.
Everyone's looking at their lives and saying -- if I get laid off, I lose my house because there isn't a breadwinner to step up, or if I get really sick while my spouse is unemployed, we're truly fucked. The speculation and the gambling behavior -- that's a reaction to the already existing sense of loss of control -- hey, we don't know if this job will last, or whether we'll survive the storm, so we might as well roll the dice ...
I haven't thought along these lines in a while ... feel like I'm getting somewhere. Hmmm ... got to read this in the morning and see where I was going with it.
Good night.
Earlier this year, 12,000 people in San Francisco signed a petition in support of a proposition on a local ballot to rename an Oceanside sewage plant after George W. Bush. The proposition is only one example of the classless disrespect many Americans have shown the president.
According to recent Gallup polls, the president's average approval rating is below 30% — down from his 90% approval in the wake of 9/11. Mr. Bush has endured relentless attacks from the left while facing abandonment from the right.
This is the price Mr. Bush is paying for trying to work with both Democrats and Republicans. During his 2004 victory speech, the president reached out to voters who supported his opponent, John Kerry, and said, "Today, I want to speak to every person who voted for my opponent. To make this nation stronger and better, I will need your support, and I will work to earn it. I will do all I can do to deserve your trust."
Those bipartisan efforts have been met with crushing resistance from both political parties.
The president's original Supreme Court choice of Harriet Miers alarmed Republicans, while his final nomination of Samuel Alito angered Democrats. His solutions to reform the immigration system alienated traditional conservatives, while his refusal to retreat in Iraq has enraged liberals who have unrealistic expectations about the challenges we face there.
It seems that no matter what Mr. Bush does, he is blamed for everything. He remains despised by the left while continuously disappointing the right.
Yet it should seem obvious that many of our country's current problems either existed long before Mr. Bush ever came to office, or are beyond his control. Perhaps if Americans stopped being so divisive, and congressional leaders came together to work with the president on some of these problems, he would actually have had a fighting chance of solving them.
Like the president said in his 2004 victory speech, "We have one country, one Constitution and one future that binds us. And when we come together and work together, there is no limit to the greatness of America."
To be sure, Mr. Bush is not completely alone. His low approval ratings put him in the good company of former Democratic President Harry S. Truman, whose own approval rating sank to 22% shortly before he left office. Despite Mr. Truman's low numbers, a 2005 Wall Street Journal poll found that he was ranked the seventh most popular president in history.
Just as Americans have gained perspective on how challenging Truman's presidency was in the wake of World War II, our country will recognize the hardship President Bush faced these past eight years — and how extraordinary it was that he accomplished what he did in the wake of the September 11 attacks.
The treatment President Bush has received from this country is nothing less than a disgrace. The attacks launched against him have been cruel and slanderous, proving to the world what little character and resolve we have. The president is not to blame for all these problems. He never lost faith in America or her people, and has tried his hardest to continue leading our nation during a very difficult time.
Our failure to stand by the one person who continued to stand by us has not gone unnoticed by our enemies. It has shown to the world how disloyal we can be when our president needed loyalty — a shameful display of arrogance and weakness that will haunt this nation long after Mr. Bush has left the White House.
Mr. Shapiro is an investigative reporter and lawyer who previously interned with John F. Kerry's legal team during the presidential election in 2004.
I was thinking of writing a blog post. There are some things I no longer bother to say, and I was thinking of reviewing them. Sort of my 10 big moments in the past decade when I realized the United States had really changed. In most cases, it's not the event, but the reaction that surprised me.
1. The Florida election in 2000. The unhinged lunacy was shocking to me — I had assumed, before that month-long debacle, that mature adults would count the votes once, count them again if it were close, and finally, simply agree that we'd done the best we could, and let's move on. The open anger and screaming at each other, I felt, was unworthy of a Great Republic, and a terrible sign.
2. The Enron/WorldCom scandals and Sarbanes-Oxley. SOX was an over-reaction that has damaged our economy and slowed recovery since the day it was passed. And this was to stop the next greedy psychopath. Uh-huh. Except greedy psychopaths aren't likely to follow any set of rules, are they?
3. The attack on Dubya after 9-11, the press's trumpeting of futility of any kind of war in Afghanistan, and the furious nature of the opposition to the War in Iraq. I had assumed that in a mature Republic, people would accept that we were facing a new kind of enemy, and needed to fight under difficult and new rules.
4. The inability to quickly rebuild the World Trade Center, and worse, trying to pretend that we were building a taller building. We're building a shorter building with an empty tower on top; it fools no one. And the fawning memorials. The greatest memorial to 9-11 would be a rapid rebuilding of the WTC, only taller, not creating a graveyard.
5. Same sex marriage. This one was not quite unbelievable to me, because I thought the day would come when people would no longer tolerate any kind of distinctions or limits ... it's prophesized in the Bible. I just didn't see it happening so quickly. As I've mentioned before, the problem with SSM isn't so much SSM as the attitudes toward truth, first principles, and language. That someone could take something as wonderful as marriage and make a divisive, hatred-tinged political issue out of its definition struck me as a sign that Americans had surrendered all our first principles out of fear of seeming mean to others.
6. The Republican Party's runaway spending from 2000-2006 utterly blew away 20 years of progress in anti-statism. Reagan made tax-and-spend a dirty word, and Clinton ratified it. It was the philosophy of the land. And then the GOP, and yes, President Bush, knocked over the paradigm. That's my harshest criticism of him.
7. Barack Obama. That this man, with his paper-thin resume and non-existent record, who has promised basically to turn this country into a European-style social democracy, could gain any traction, surprised the heck of me in the early going. (I realized some time in the spring, you can find the post, that he was going to win.) I should note, however, that we have become a country of serial bubble-blowing, and Obama is just another bubble, a political one, instead of a business one.
8. Global warming hysteria. This surprised me because mature people should understand that trendlines in things like climate science are not so quickly attributed to causes. Yet, there seemed to be a compelling need to bludgeon anyone who thought differently. Heck, I was open to the idea that man was causing global warming, but was keeping an open mind. The religious zeal of the global warming alarmists, however, really set me to thinking that these people really had an anti-industrial and pro-statist agenda. I was like, have a little humility — we don't understand what causes the weather yet. And we certainly don't know how we can fix it. For all we know, we're ready to have another ice age and fossil fuels are holding it off. My point is: You don't know. Be humble. There are better ways to make your argument to reduce fossil-fuel usage and protect the environment.
9. The destruction and apostasy of the Episcopal Church. I had seen this one coming for a long time, since 1992, but I never thought it would happen so soon — and that people would either (1) turn their heads aside and pretend the church isn't apostasizing, and (2) actually elect apostate and heretical bishops and then persecute orthodox ones. In some ways, I see the Episcopal Church as the canary in the coal mine when it comes to America. The left is humble when seeking power, and tyrannical once it gets it — it talks tolerance to get its heresies included, and then bans orthodoxy once in power.
10. Serial bubble blowing. By this, I mean our susceptibility to the madness of crowds -- as people seem focused on how to make money speculating in price-changes in markets, but not so much in working hard to create value or building businesses. Dot-com, lotteries, tech boom, m&a boom, real estate ... now apparently we're going to create a government bubble.
That many of my friends, people I love, not only didn't see any or many of these things as a problem, but positively cheered many of these things on. Makes me feel ... well, lonely sometimes.
Meanwhile, at this passing of an era, there are some areas that I've given short shrift to:
1. Healthcare. Problem: I don't know why it costs so much, so I can't propose any solutions. But I do ask the same question as many people -- what can we do to reduce the risk of a medical illnes knocking someone out of the middle class? And what was the traditional solution that's no longer relevant?
2. Globalization. Darned if I know if this is a good thing or a bad thing. My suspicion is still it's a bad thing, but I'm not sure what the solution is, short of allowing people and capital to cross borders freely.
3. Mass layoffs. This has been going on for 20 years, but it's still not cool and has damaged our country in all sorts of ways. Basically, there's a fundamental lack of trust -- the sense that we're all free agents. Perhaps it's that sense that drives people to government solutions now.
4. Energy independence. Yup, we need it.
There are other deeper cultural problems I don't talk too much about anymore. Toqueville said the U.S. runs the risk of atomization. I think we've really progressed far in that atomization in the past 30 years. It seems like a different country, frankly.
I guess what I'm getting at is this -- the country has become atomized, that is, living either individually or in very small units, and that smallness leave us extremely vulnerable to the whims of fate and the market. As conservatives, we reject statism because we think that families, neighborhoods, towns, associations, community groups, parishes and faith should taking away that sense of vulnerability. But these things have all declined so much that they're not leaving people feeling secure any more -- and so they turn to government. That's it.
Everyone's looking at their lives and saying -- if I get laid off, I lose my house because there isn't a breadwinner to step up, or if I get really sick while my spouse is unemployed, we're truly fucked. The speculation and the gambling behavior -- that's a reaction to the already existing sense of loss of control -- hey, we don't know if this job will last, or whether we'll survive the storm, so we might as well roll the dice ...
I haven't thought along these lines in a while ... feel like I'm getting somewhere. Hmmm ... got to read this in the morning and see where I was going with it.
Good night.
[Bill,
November 4, 2008]
Congratulations to the Victors
Congratulations, Democrats, on regaining the presidency. And congratulations to President-Elect Barack Obama, our nation's first female president.
[Bill,
November 4, 2008]
Salve Regina
Hail, holy Queen, Mother of Mercy,
our life, our sweetness and our hope.
To thee do we cry, poor banished children of Eve;
to thee do we send up our sighs,
mourning and weeping in this valley of tears.
Turn then, most gracious advocate,
thine eyes of mercy toward us;
and after this our exile,
show unto us the blessed fruit of thy womb, Jesus.
O clement, O loving, O sweet Virgin Mary.
V./ Pray for us O holy Mother of God,
R./ that we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ.
Let us pray. Almighty, everlasting God, who by the co-operation of the Holy Ghost didst prepare the body and soul of the glorious Virgin-Mother Mary to become a dwelling-place meet for thy Son: grant that as we rejoice in her commemoration; so by her fervent intercession we may be delivered from present evils and from everlasting death. Through the same Christ our Lord. Amen.
our life, our sweetness and our hope.
To thee do we cry, poor banished children of Eve;
to thee do we send up our sighs,
mourning and weeping in this valley of tears.
Turn then, most gracious advocate,
thine eyes of mercy toward us;
and after this our exile,
show unto us the blessed fruit of thy womb, Jesus.
O clement, O loving, O sweet Virgin Mary.
V./ Pray for us O holy Mother of God,
R./ that we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ.
Let us pray. Almighty, everlasting God, who by the co-operation of the Holy Ghost didst prepare the body and soul of the glorious Virgin-Mother Mary to become a dwelling-place meet for thy Son: grant that as we rejoice in her commemoration; so by her fervent intercession we may be delivered from present evils and from everlasting death. Through the same Christ our Lord. Amen.
[Bill,
November 4, 2008]
Very satisfying
When I saw my ballot marked up for John McCain, Sarah Palin, and Jim Rhoades (RIP), I felt very satisfied: After nearly a two-year campaign, I got to say my part.
Plus, I finally got to see the Palmerton Rod & Gun Club -- which is about 200 yards from my house, just over a hill. I've been hearing it for four years, but this time I actually went inside, because that's the polling place. Pretty nice place.
Then out to breakfast. Now, back to work. Cheers!
Plus, I finally got to see the Palmerton Rod & Gun Club -- which is about 200 yards from my house, just over a hill. I've been hearing it for four years, but this time I actually went inside, because that's the polling place. Pretty nice place.
Then out to breakfast. Now, back to work. Cheers!
[Bill,
November 3, 2008]
'Democrats need to keep people poor'
I've always thought that :) Check out this guy:
[Bill,
November 3, 2008]
Some general, nonpartisan thoughts on the election
No matter who you support, here are some thoughts:
1. Victory isn't final, failure isn't fatal. We will argue another day.
2. "Fair enough" — an important philosophy. How we take this election — indeed, every election — is more important than election results themselves.
3. Separation of powers — people and businesses and lobbyists — they all have power, too. Whoever the new president is, he'll still have to deal with limits on presidential power.
4. God bless America.
5. Neither party "deserves" to win.
6. Try not to freak out. All this talk about secession, violence in the streets, a new civil war, the doom-mongering and friendship excommunicating — give it a rest. That's what people in banana republics do.
7. Eat a good meal tomorrow with someone you love. Have perspective. Be thankful. Don't bet against America even if your side loses; don't assume all be well even if your side wins.
8. Don't gloat. Don't despair.
9. Pray before you vote. Open yourself up to God and ask, "God, what is your will for this country? What is your will for my vote?" Listen to the answer. Do that.
10. Remember not to get too abstract in your thinking — instead of thinking of those stupid, deluded crazy bastards, think of someone you love and respect who votes for the other side — and keep that person in mind when you think of the opposition. It's hard to hate your opponents when you picture one of them as someone you love and respect.
That's all. Good luck. Travel safely.
1. Victory isn't final, failure isn't fatal. We will argue another day.
2. "Fair enough" — an important philosophy. How we take this election — indeed, every election — is more important than election results themselves.
3. Separation of powers — people and businesses and lobbyists — they all have power, too. Whoever the new president is, he'll still have to deal with limits on presidential power.
4. God bless America.
5. Neither party "deserves" to win.
6. Try not to freak out. All this talk about secession, violence in the streets, a new civil war, the doom-mongering and friendship excommunicating — give it a rest. That's what people in banana republics do.
7. Eat a good meal tomorrow with someone you love. Have perspective. Be thankful. Don't bet against America even if your side loses; don't assume all be well even if your side wins.
8. Don't gloat. Don't despair.
9. Pray before you vote. Open yourself up to God and ask, "God, what is your will for this country? What is your will for my vote?" Listen to the answer. Do that.
10. Remember not to get too abstract in your thinking — instead of thinking of those stupid, deluded crazy bastards, think of someone you love and respect who votes for the other side — and keep that person in mind when you think of the opposition. It's hard to hate your opponents when you picture one of them as someone you love and respect.
That's all. Good luck. Travel safely.
[Bill,
November 2, 2008]
John McCain for President
IndustrialBlog (aka, Bill's Notes) endorses John McCain for president. Among the key issues:
1. Pro-life issues. The Democratic Party's position on abortion, and Barack Obama's extremism on that issue, is indefensible. The Republican Party, as with the previous issue of slavery, once again takes the unpopular, but necessary, side of defending human life. The Democratic Party, once again, declares one class of human beings to be the property of another, and capable of being discarded at the will of another.
Barack Obama has promised to sign the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), which will undo all the pro-life work since 1973's Roe v. Wade decision, by invalidating every federal, state and local law that in any way interferes with a woman's decision to murder her child in the womb. Many of these laws, such as parental notification, are popular with the vast majority of Americans.
John McCain, meanwhile, promises to maintain the status quo on current abortion laws, and appoint federal judges who exhibit judicial restraint, seeking to interpret the law, not legislate from the bench, and respect separation of powers — all issues that hinge on the horrific judicial legislation of abortion begun with Roe.
2. Judicial appointments. Barack Obama is a transnational progressive and will appoint judges at the far left of the ideological spectrum — people whose hermeneutics are tainted by postmodernism theorizing about language. Essentially, they don't believe in meaning, but power. What that means is they think language has no inherent mean, but readers (and judges) create meaning by how they interpret language. Essentially, that means you can't figure out the law until the judges rule — partially true now, but soon to be wildly true. Barack Obama thought the Warren conservative. Nuff said.
John McCain, as stated in the above point, promises to appoint judges who hold to our traditional understanding of language — that is, that words have meaning and that meaning can be communicated. It is difficult to explain to folks how extremely dangerous leftist ideas of language are when applied to the law — they will destroy language, and thus destroy the law, because by their own words, they believe only in power.
Our constitution is already barely recognizable to the founding fathers, not through amendment, but through interpretation. With leftist eyes, there isn't a concept in there that's safe.
3. Identity politics. This is a leftist point of view where people's thoughts, actions and opinions are judged not on an individual basis, but on what race, gender, class, religion, ethnic class, sexual orientation, and or disability they have. People are judged collectively, not individually. While this has been a trend within both the Democratic and Republican parties for 40 years, and getting worse, the Democratic Party is on the vanguard of this movement.
Identity politics have already done a lot of damage to the U.S., and made the country a less pleasant place to live. It is a form of totalitarianism, manifested right not in political correctness, but is something likely to be more codified into law. See the Akaka bill in Hawaii, which seeks to allow native Hawaiians to have their own government. So far, laws like these have been declared unconstitutional. However, with Obama's judicial appointments, we could start to slide even further down this slippery slope — into chaos. In Great Britain, for example, Muslims are allowed Muslim courts based on shar'ia. This is where identity politics ends up — that there are different rules for different people.
While we think John McCain and the GOP are far from pristine on the issue of identity politics, they don't, at heart, believe in identity politics. Left-liberal Democrats do. (Centrists don't so much.) We would prefer to see a candidate and a party that utterly rejects identity politics, but have seen both parties and vast swaths of our culture infected by it. It remains a serious danger no matter who wins.
4. Welfare statism and state dependence. Americans, for the most part, are a giving people who want to help the poor. However, the left edge of the Democratic Party, as well as Barack Obama, believe more strongly in government interventions in poor neighborhoods than I do. I have seen little to no evidence that giving paychecks over many years produces anything but dependence and the ensuing anger, resentment and entitlement mentality at the indignity of adult dependence. Bill Clinton's welfare reform was successful. I would hate to see it undone. LBJ's War on Poverty vastly increased poverty and suffering in inner cities. It is difficult to explain to people that inner-city schools used to be tough, but manageable. They are not manageable, and haven't been for three decades.
John McCain, while far from a reformer on welfare, will likely do no worse than our current system. Barack Obama threatens to vastly intervene in the lives of the poor, and with government's track record on this issue, I think you should be very afraid of the likely results.
To me, those are the four key issues — a class of humans will still be declared non-persons, our fundamental constitutional values will face a continued assault to prove that up is down, we will be judged more and more by our demographic characteristics than our individual ones, and that ramping up the welfare state will not only be expensive, but that the money will be wasted on creating public=union jobs that will not help the poor or improve their lot.
There is a fifth issue, too, but I'm less sure of what either candidate will do:
5. Global warming. The world has been cooling since 1998. In all likelihood, global warming will be seen by historians as fin-de-siecle liberal hysteria. John McCain has taken a reasonable position, which boils down to, well, a lot of the global warming agenda, such as finding alternative fuels and reducing pollution, are good ideas, anyway. However, McCain might endorse a cap-and-trade law, which would damage our economies in the name of ... well, nothing. Obama, meanwhile, seems to support cap-and-trade, but I'm not sure how strongly he is committed to that.
There are a few other issues that are even less certain:
6. Spending. The GOP won power by bashing the Democrats on spending. This is now proven bullshit. Neither party is truly committed to reining in spending, and frankly, neither is the American public.
7. Taxes. The GOP's policy seems to be spend-and-borrow. The Democrats seems to be spend-and-tax. We think neither party is truly committed to responsible financial governance, and we're not sure about the American people, either. To give the devil his due, however, it should be noted that tax-and-spend is more responsible than tax-and-borrow.
8. National security. There were vast differences there for a while, but the Democratic House funded the surge, and Obama seems to in favor of strong national defense. McCain, of course, is. McCain is preferable because his instincts are likely to be better; Obama, frankly, is a wild card on national security. That doesn't mean he'll be bad, or good — we just don't know.
9. Guns. Some are worried about Obama's gun-control policies — I'm not sure what he'll do and what he could possibly get passed through Congress. I am not sure enough on this issue — only that McCain offers no reasons to worry, and Obama does. I do know if the Democrats ask for my gun, I'll join a heck of a lot of others in saying, "Come and get them."
10. Economy. I think BOTH candidates are wild cards on the economy, and there are no guarantees either way to vote on economic issues. Flip a coin — I have little faith McCain will handle the economy better than Obama, or vice versa.
Finally, there is the issue of leadership. A crucial part of leadership is choosing the direction. While Obama is a stronger leader in terms of technique, I don't think he'll lead the country in the right direction. Let me put it this way — if Obama held conservative positions, I think he would be much better than McCain at executing a conservative mission, and I would ardently support him.
However, it is not Obama's skills that are in question, but his leadership decisions. One thing that makes Obama so dangerous is that he is extremely skillful at convincing people to go the wrong direction. That many people today are merrily following him down the garden path is extremely worrisome to me. In fact, I'm far more worried about Obama's followers than Obama.
Finally, and this is the deal-breaker: A vote for any pro-choice candidate because that person is pro-choice constitutes formal cooperation with grave evil. A vote for a candidate despite the candidate's abortion position constitutes material cooperation with grave evil. A person has an affirmative duty to minimize evil in the world, and that means voting for the more pro-life candidate (and you may exclude candidates with no chance of victory; however, a vote for a quixotic pro-life candidate is also a moral choice.)
Based on the above factors, and considering the grave danger to one's eternal soul in voting for Obama or any pro-choice candidate, I think it's beyond question that John McCain is a far better choice for president.
1. Pro-life issues. The Democratic Party's position on abortion, and Barack Obama's extremism on that issue, is indefensible. The Republican Party, as with the previous issue of slavery, once again takes the unpopular, but necessary, side of defending human life. The Democratic Party, once again, declares one class of human beings to be the property of another, and capable of being discarded at the will of another.
Barack Obama has promised to sign the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), which will undo all the pro-life work since 1973's Roe v. Wade decision, by invalidating every federal, state and local law that in any way interferes with a woman's decision to murder her child in the womb. Many of these laws, such as parental notification, are popular with the vast majority of Americans.
John McCain, meanwhile, promises to maintain the status quo on current abortion laws, and appoint federal judges who exhibit judicial restraint, seeking to interpret the law, not legislate from the bench, and respect separation of powers — all issues that hinge on the horrific judicial legislation of abortion begun with Roe.
2. Judicial appointments. Barack Obama is a transnational progressive and will appoint judges at the far left of the ideological spectrum — people whose hermeneutics are tainted by postmodernism theorizing about language. Essentially, they don't believe in meaning, but power. What that means is they think language has no inherent mean, but readers (and judges) create meaning by how they interpret language. Essentially, that means you can't figure out the law until the judges rule — partially true now, but soon to be wildly true. Barack Obama thought the Warren conservative. Nuff said.
John McCain, as stated in the above point, promises to appoint judges who hold to our traditional understanding of language — that is, that words have meaning and that meaning can be communicated. It is difficult to explain to folks how extremely dangerous leftist ideas of language are when applied to the law — they will destroy language, and thus destroy the law, because by their own words, they believe only in power.
Our constitution is already barely recognizable to the founding fathers, not through amendment, but through interpretation. With leftist eyes, there isn't a concept in there that's safe.
3. Identity politics. This is a leftist point of view where people's thoughts, actions and opinions are judged not on an individual basis, but on what race, gender, class, religion, ethnic class, sexual orientation, and or disability they have. People are judged collectively, not individually. While this has been a trend within both the Democratic and Republican parties for 40 years, and getting worse, the Democratic Party is on the vanguard of this movement.
Identity politics have already done a lot of damage to the U.S., and made the country a less pleasant place to live. It is a form of totalitarianism, manifested right not in political correctness, but is something likely to be more codified into law. See the Akaka bill in Hawaii, which seeks to allow native Hawaiians to have their own government. So far, laws like these have been declared unconstitutional. However, with Obama's judicial appointments, we could start to slide even further down this slippery slope — into chaos. In Great Britain, for example, Muslims are allowed Muslim courts based on shar'ia. This is where identity politics ends up — that there are different rules for different people.
While we think John McCain and the GOP are far from pristine on the issue of identity politics, they don't, at heart, believe in identity politics. Left-liberal Democrats do. (Centrists don't so much.) We would prefer to see a candidate and a party that utterly rejects identity politics, but have seen both parties and vast swaths of our culture infected by it. It remains a serious danger no matter who wins.
4. Welfare statism and state dependence. Americans, for the most part, are a giving people who want to help the poor. However, the left edge of the Democratic Party, as well as Barack Obama, believe more strongly in government interventions in poor neighborhoods than I do. I have seen little to no evidence that giving paychecks over many years produces anything but dependence and the ensuing anger, resentment and entitlement mentality at the indignity of adult dependence. Bill Clinton's welfare reform was successful. I would hate to see it undone. LBJ's War on Poverty vastly increased poverty and suffering in inner cities. It is difficult to explain to people that inner-city schools used to be tough, but manageable. They are not manageable, and haven't been for three decades.
John McCain, while far from a reformer on welfare, will likely do no worse than our current system. Barack Obama threatens to vastly intervene in the lives of the poor, and with government's track record on this issue, I think you should be very afraid of the likely results.
To me, those are the four key issues — a class of humans will still be declared non-persons, our fundamental constitutional values will face a continued assault to prove that up is down, we will be judged more and more by our demographic characteristics than our individual ones, and that ramping up the welfare state will not only be expensive, but that the money will be wasted on creating public=union jobs that will not help the poor or improve their lot.
There is a fifth issue, too, but I'm less sure of what either candidate will do:
5. Global warming. The world has been cooling since 1998. In all likelihood, global warming will be seen by historians as fin-de-siecle liberal hysteria. John McCain has taken a reasonable position, which boils down to, well, a lot of the global warming agenda, such as finding alternative fuels and reducing pollution, are good ideas, anyway. However, McCain might endorse a cap-and-trade law, which would damage our economies in the name of ... well, nothing. Obama, meanwhile, seems to support cap-and-trade, but I'm not sure how strongly he is committed to that.
There are a few other issues that are even less certain:
6. Spending. The GOP won power by bashing the Democrats on spending. This is now proven bullshit. Neither party is truly committed to reining in spending, and frankly, neither is the American public.
7. Taxes. The GOP's policy seems to be spend-and-borrow. The Democrats seems to be spend-and-tax. We think neither party is truly committed to responsible financial governance, and we're not sure about the American people, either. To give the devil his due, however, it should be noted that tax-and-spend is more responsible than tax-and-borrow.
8. National security. There were vast differences there for a while, but the Democratic House funded the surge, and Obama seems to in favor of strong national defense. McCain, of course, is. McCain is preferable because his instincts are likely to be better; Obama, frankly, is a wild card on national security. That doesn't mean he'll be bad, or good — we just don't know.
9. Guns. Some are worried about Obama's gun-control policies — I'm not sure what he'll do and what he could possibly get passed through Congress. I am not sure enough on this issue — only that McCain offers no reasons to worry, and Obama does. I do know if the Democrats ask for my gun, I'll join a heck of a lot of others in saying, "Come and get them."
10. Economy. I think BOTH candidates are wild cards on the economy, and there are no guarantees either way to vote on economic issues. Flip a coin — I have little faith McCain will handle the economy better than Obama, or vice versa.
Finally, there is the issue of leadership. A crucial part of leadership is choosing the direction. While Obama is a stronger leader in terms of technique, I don't think he'll lead the country in the right direction. Let me put it this way — if Obama held conservative positions, I think he would be much better than McCain at executing a conservative mission, and I would ardently support him.
However, it is not Obama's skills that are in question, but his leadership decisions. One thing that makes Obama so dangerous is that he is extremely skillful at convincing people to go the wrong direction. That many people today are merrily following him down the garden path is extremely worrisome to me. In fact, I'm far more worried about Obama's followers than Obama.
Finally, and this is the deal-breaker: A vote for any pro-choice candidate because that person is pro-choice constitutes formal cooperation with grave evil. A vote for a candidate despite the candidate's abortion position constitutes material cooperation with grave evil. A person has an affirmative duty to minimize evil in the world, and that means voting for the more pro-life candidate (and you may exclude candidates with no chance of victory; however, a vote for a quixotic pro-life candidate is also a moral choice.)
Based on the above factors, and considering the grave danger to one's eternal soul in voting for Obama or any pro-choice candidate, I think it's beyond question that John McCain is a far better choice for president.